Post by pigsnzen on Apr 4, 2007 8:55:34 GMT -5

knoxville said:

Ok, here is what I found on probable cause. It looks as if you are going to get searched one way or another if the police wants to do it. It can be debated after the fact but probable cause is so subjective that it is up to the judge to decide if it was valid or not. If he/she tells you they have reasonable belief because of X and Y to search your car, your going to be searched. That will be up to the judge to decide if it was valid. At least that i how read it.

What is probable cause?Probable cause basically boils down to a “reasonable belief” that a crime has been committed or that evidence of a crime exists at the place being searched or that a suspect has committed a crime. Because a “reasonable belief” is a relatively fluid concept, probable cause determinations are based, in part, on a magistrate’s common sense as applied to the totality of the circumstances. In other words, given all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit for a warrant, including the truthfulness, credibility, and basis of knowledge of the persons supplying information, the test is whether there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place or that a suspect committed a crime.

Thoughts?

That is exactly my point. Probable cause can be debated in court, whereas giving consent to a search cannot. You can't stop a cop from searching your car if they really want to, but you can suppress the evidence found if probable cause is not established in court (which happens a lot more than people imagine).

One way is pleading guilty before you even reach a courtroom and the other actually gives your lawyer something to do to earn their money. Deals are cut all the time, but only if both sides have something to offer. Consenting to the search takes away any bargining chips you may have had.

Post by oleander124 on Apr 4, 2007 9:02:31 GMT -5

knoxville said:

What is probable cause? Probable cause basically boils down to a “reasonable belief” that a crime has been committed

If you're drunk, impaired, have red eyes, have a roach out in the open, etc...then you have committed a crime, yes, and deserved to be searched. You've been caught at that point and no longer have the right to deny a search.

or that evidence of a crime exists at the place being searched

Evidence is the key word here. If there is no evidence, then there's no evidence. You can't argue that their hair was a little nappy or they are black and therefore they must be on drugs or doing something illegal, for example.

or that a suspect has committed a crime.

Committing a crime...you were caught committing a crime, therefore reasonable cause is now evidence.

Reasonable cause is easy to debate, but my entire point from the beginning is that you shouldn't be stupid if you are transporting illegal substances. Be as responsible as you can with your goods. Don't wave it around, swerve in traffic, speed, drive too slow, have smoke billowing out of your windows, etc... If you give the cop reasonable cause, then you will get searched and caught. If you don't give reasonable belief that a crime has been committed, commit an actual crime, or have evidence of a crime then the cop has nothing that will stand in court. Profiling is probably the worst thing I've heard of...and here I thought this country was supposed to be "progressive" and not stereotype. That will never happen, I know, but if people don't do anything stupid while driving, then they shouldn't have to give up their right and allow a search if they aren't "committing a crime".

EDIT: from pigsnzen

Probable cause can be debated in court, whereas giving consent to a search cannot.

Exactly. Once you give up that right, it is no longer debatable in court and reasonable cause no longer matters.

Post by jdawg on Apr 4, 2007 12:22:34 GMT -5

"Your saying there should be no law against transporting illegal substances as long as you are not drunk or otherwise messed up?"

Pignzen, Oleander, Jdawg Where you at?

The cops shouldn't be able to search you without a warrant if you're not endangering other people, period. Regardless of the legality of what you're carrying.

Take this into consideration: Where I'm from (Arkansas) there are far (FAR) more dry counties then "wet" ones. If you have over a certain limit of alchohol and a cop finds it, you can be charged with bootlegging. Let's say someone of legal drinking age from out-of-state is, oh, I don't know, heading to Bonnaroo and has enough alchohol to supply he and his friends the full four days. He gets pulled over in Lonoke County, Arkansas (a particulary nasty and corrupt county, Google search it and read about how the Sheriff was involved with making crystal meth and his wife was charged with having sex with inmates in the County jail, but I digress) and the fool consents to a search because he figures "hey, I don't have anything illegal in the car". The cop opens up the trunk, finds the booze, and hauls him down to county on a bootlegging charge. Yes, this happens. He may or may not beat the charge, but it's still a huge pain in the ass, ruining your weekend, and you'll have to take yourself to court hundreds of miles away, all of which could have been avoided if you just refused consent and instead of figuring "you didn't have anything to hide". When you're traveling across state lines, you don't know the laws of every state you're going through, or county even. What's "legal" in one jurisdiction may not be in another.

Now you're probably going to ask me "if someone has 3 lbs of crack-cocaine, is that going to be okay". My answer would then be, if all the evidence a cop has against him is hope that there's something bad in there, then I say yes, leave him alone. Cops shouldn't be able to search you in the absense of evidence. Period. I don't care if you're hauling bombs and guns. I don't want to live in a country where the police do not need evidence to arrest and convict you. I'm glad that I don't.

Post by jdawg on Apr 4, 2007 12:33:35 GMT -5

knoxville said:

Sorry yossarian laws are not subject to your individual approval. It simply doesn't work that way.)

Civil disobedience is as American as apple pie. Read up on your history, some of the most important events of our history (Boston Tea Party, The Underground Railroad, we could go on) are direct result of people breaking a law they didn't agree with. Of course, they would have had to be prepared to "deal with the consequences", but do you think anyone helping to get slaves to the north would have opened up their home to search simply by being asked? Hell no.

Post by oleander124 on Apr 4, 2007 12:59:26 GMT -5

jdawg said:

[The cops shouldn't be able to search you without a warrant if you're not endangering other people, period. Regardless of the legality of what you're carrying.

....

Cops shouldn't be able to search you in the absense of evidence. Period. I don't care if you're hauling bombs and guns. I don't want to live in a country where the police do not need evidence to arrest and convict you. I'm glad that I don't.

Post by Gibran on Apr 4, 2007 13:20:47 GMT -5

jdawg said:Civil disobedience is as American as apple pie. Read up on your history, some of the most important events of our history (Boston Tea Party, The Underground Railroad, we could go on) are direct result of people breaking a law they didn't agree with. Of course, they would have had to be prepared to "deal with the consequences", but do you think anyone helping to get slaves to the north would have opened up their home to search simply by being asked? Hell no.

So yeah, it can work that way if enough people are fed up with it.

I don't need anyone to tell me to read up on my history. Never said Civil Disobedience is wrong in any way. I agree with with your statement. Can't figure out how you got I was against it? That being said if a law is passed your are expected to follow it or face a penalty. Thats just the way it is. CD is still breaking the law, right? Even if it is in an effort to change it. Do you know how condescending telling someone to read up on their history is?

Post by xiphoid on Apr 4, 2007 13:21:32 GMT -5

I don't want to live in a country where the police do not need evidence to arrest and convict you. I'm glad that I don't.

you sure about that? drawing what i consider to be logical conclusions from what i've read consider this:

pigsnzen said:

The government made the rules concerning being questioned and searched by the police

and what an interesting way they made those rules.assumption as truth: a police officer legally requires a warrant or probable cause to search your vehicle.

knoxville said:

Because a “reasonable belief” is a relatively fluid concept, probable cause determinations are based, in part, on a magistrate’s common sense as applied to the totality of the circumstances.

so a police officer does not truly determine what probable cause is; in essence they are allowed to state their belief which may or may not have sufficient evidence behind it to allow for a 3rd party (judge) to uphold it. however, before a police officer proceeds with a search, he does not have to have a judge determine whether or not his judgement was sound, that is done after the fact.

so really, what 'evidence' does a police officer need to arrest you? sounds to me like they can do whatever they want, and let someone else decide whether or not what they did was appropriate, and what to do about it then.

Maybe I'll throw myself to the dogs, but my back's not to the wallMaybe I'll lay some bricks for the man, but the days just aren't that longSo if I settle back and chill will I see far enough to feel the angel's dream?I thought it was the Story of the World!

Post by xiphoid on Apr 4, 2007 13:32:32 GMT -5

Maybe I'll throw myself to the dogs, but my back's not to the wallMaybe I'll lay some bricks for the man, but the days just aren't that longSo if I settle back and chill will I see far enough to feel the angel's dream?I thought it was the Story of the World!

Post by jdawg on Apr 4, 2007 13:49:56 GMT -5

xiphoid420 said:

so really, what 'evidence' does a police officer need to arrest you? sounds to me like they can do whatever they want, and let someone else decide whether or not what they did was appropriate, and what to do about it then.

Hmm, very true. But it's been discussed already that if a police officer does search your car illegally and you do get arrested, you have a good chance of getting that evidence supressed. If a police officer consistently brings people in who are getting off because these searches are w/o probable cause and therefore illegal.... I don't know. It can't make judges and prosecutors happy if a police officer is constantly bringing in people who get off because the evidence was suppressed because the search was illegal. I don't know if there would be any eventual consequences for the officer or not. Does anyone know if cops can get in trouble for hauling people in on illegal searches? Probably not. But I've never heard of anyone being hauled in on a "hunch". Doesn't mean it doesn't happen though. However, I don't know that any prosecutor or judge would take seriously any police write-up of probable cause too seriously if it read "The suspect had dirty hair" or "The suspect was black". If there was nothing else to tip the officer off, I'm assuming he/she would have to lie.

Certainly, though, some cops can be corrupt and may bulls**t their way through probable cause and haul you in. But if you are dealing with a corrupt cop, obviously your rights are not going to be respected and you'll have to deal with it the courtroom whether you consent to a search or not.

EDIT: So I guess my statement would be more correct by saying "where police AREN'T SUPPOSED to arrest you without evidence",

Post by Dude on Apr 4, 2007 18:57:55 GMT -5

sharingintheroo said:

So you have the utmost respect for teachers. Then a sentence later you start warning about teachers that invade your personal life and work with police?

Thats just fricking lunacy. You keep saying how very little police make for a living. How much is it? You seem to be very in the know about the inner workings of the police force so please clue us all in. Better yet how much do you make a year? Should we watch out for you stealing our stuff becaue you make the same or less than a police officer?

So which is it? Is it all propaganda? Or are children being targeted because of police and the drug war? You cant have it both ways.

as for the teachers one of the first things i said was that teachers have a small percentage of bad apples, just like anything else. the ones i talked about working with cops and manipulating children fall into the bad apple category.

as for cops pay and trust worthiness entry level cops make around 25 -30k a year. thats barely a survivable wage. im not gonna go into how much money i make on with you on the internet. but its more then that. and i dont ask a bunch of investigative questions to try to trick innocent people out of their rights so i can go through and mess up the private property of strangers. stangers who pay cops paychecks so they can protect and serve them, not violate our rights. so i think that moves me a bit up the trust meter above cops just for that reason. your private property is yours. i dont want to go through it. i dont care where you came from and where your going. if a stranger wants to know all that im leary of them. i certainly wouldnt trust any stranger asking where i came from, where im going, and can they look through my stuff.

and as for the propaganda about targetign kids i never said that it never happened. i asked where it was and why id never seen it if its this widespread problem. just like teachers, dealers have a few bad apples too, anyone targeting kids is a bad apple. its not some rampant problem like the propaganda claims. there isnt a dealer out on every playground. its crazy. i would also say parents dont have sex with their kids, but we all know that some dirtbags do. i could say christians dont kill people, yet timothy mcveigh blew up a federal building. its a rare thing. everything has its bad apples. and its in inner city areas that targeting kids happens. where the cops dont do anything to secure our children. their worried about making enough "collars for dollars" so the department dosent run out of money and they lose their job.

Post by clato on Apr 4, 2007 19:35:10 GMT -5

dudewhersmyinforoo said:

sharingintheroo said:

and as for the propaganda about targetign kids i never said that it never happened. i asked where it was and why id never seen it if its this widespread problem. just like teachers, dealers have a few bad apples too, anyone targeting kids is a bad apple. its not some rampant problem like the propaganda claims. there isnt a dealer out on every playground. its crazy. "collars for dollars" so the department dosent run out of money and they lose their job.

I have been an addiction coun. for many years. Both in a max security prison and now with kids. There is a difference in people in the illegal drug game and people using for recreational reasons. Not every kid is being openly targeted by drug dealers. But there are many kids who are. I have clients who started cocaine at a few years old with mom and dad. That is a different world from most people who use drugs. There are 10 year drug dealers. The police have both have it hard and make it hard on themselves. While working in prison I had a client who had a few pounds that he was caring. It was something that a bunch of friends went in together to get he got pulled over and is prison at age 18 for 30 years. Most child molesters are in prison for under 10. Is the war on drug a farce? YES. Can the police do a more efficient job then picking up a bunch of kids going to a concert? YES. Should a good deal of the money that is use on "the war on drugs" be used on addicts whose lives are ruined? YES.

I advocate for this, I yell for this but in the end drug treatment centers are underfunded. BAD parents are getting there kids high at 7 or 8 years old, junkies die, and misguided dirty cops pull you over and think they are putting a dent in the drug trade.

I guess is want I am saying consent or not to consent be safe. I still consult a prisons and I would hate to see a fellow rooer up because he got one of those police officers and was found with drugs. JUST BE SAFE.................

Post by Gibran on Apr 4, 2007 19:42:16 GMT -5

Dude, I'm curious. You name things such as incest, teachers having sex with students, christians killing eachother and blow them off as "rare things" Then for some reason you seem to think MOST cops get up everyday and have nothing better to do than rip peoples stuff apart, perform unlawful searches, and trample peoples rights!!! You have the right to your own opinion. But, your claims seem to be blown WAY out of wack.

Maybe I'll throw myself to the dogs, but my back's not to the wallMaybe I'll lay some bricks for the man, but the days just aren't that longSo if I settle back and chill will I see far enough to feel the angel's dream?I thought it was the Story of the World!

Post by chicagorooer on Apr 4, 2007 20:28:27 GMT -5

All doctors suck b/c they charge me $$ and when I die I still have to pay them( assholes)...All they want to do is get your money and practice secret gov't experiments in the name of "king george".... All software developers are pricks. They charge me money even though they sell me software with Bugs in them. Construction workers holy shit are they horrible. I help pay for a road and bamm I see cracks in the pavement what kind of crap is that. Don't even get me started on the local landscapers I pay money for there sevrvices and every year (winter time) my plants die.....I should get a refund. Firefighters are the worst. When they come so "save my life" (yeah right) they probably started the fire just to make a buck and act busy b/c if they aren't GW will cutt off the funding. Plus they destroy perfectly good rooms "to put out a fire"(sure it is) ...they have a network of contractors and home repair people they are in bed with. (such a racket)......to fix the house after they destroyed it and guess what they don't even give me a check (wtf)

You can see how silly, childish and narrow minded this all is. So when DUDEWHERESMYBRAIN talks out his ass about cops and most everything else don't get all worked up. Just remember he is a HATER and it seems as though he has a deep hatred for the men in blue b/c he somewhere in life made a mistake and got his bottom spanked by johnny law and he thinks about it everyday of his life.

Not everthing in life is pretty and fits into a nice little packaged box. However if another man or women takes an oath to try and help protect my family knowing they could die in the process I HAVE MUCH REPSECT FOR THEM !!! As for the few bad apples which there are in anything they need to be prosecuted and justice should be applied. However I will never fall victim to the narrow minded view that these men and women want to screw my life up.......If u see life through these type of glassess it truly must be hell on earth.......Peace allll

Post by Dude on Apr 4, 2007 20:34:36 GMT -5

knoxville said:

Dude, I'm curious. You name things such as incest, teachers having sex with students, christians killing eachother and blow them off as "rare things" Then for some reason you seem to think MOST cops get up everyday and have nothing better to do than rip peoples stuff apart, perform unlawful searches, and trample peoples rights!!! You have the right to your own opinion. But, your claims seem to be blown WAY out of wack.

25 to 30 barely a survivable wage????? You can't be serious?

those things i mentioned dont happen everywhere all the time. cops are out violating peoples rights every day. they are trained to trick and intimidate you into forfeiting your rights. its just a fact. do they occasionaly stop a kidnapper or bank robber? yes. do they spend 95 percent of their time intimidating people into forfeiting their rights so they can harrass those that employ them to extort even more money out of them? yes. everyday. in everystate. everytime they deal with anyone. if your pulled over for speeding the second they ask you how fast you were going, where your coming from, where your going to, do you have anything illegal int ther car, etc... they are trying to trick and intimidate you into refusing your rights. they wake up everyday and decide it is what they want to do with their time on earth. big difference when compared with the extraordinarily small perecntage of incest cases and terrorist bombings.

and i guess it depends where you live. but my monthly expenses come to over 2 grand a month, and i live in the boonies. sure you can exist on pay like that. but there is more to a survivable wage then just meeting the bills. there are all sorts of things that come up. and i figure a few vacations are required for survival. so is planning for retirement. unless you trust our government to take care of it. but they arent doing so hot on that front.

Post by Gibran on Apr 4, 2007 20:53:22 GMT -5

Dude seriously, I have been pulled over a few times in my life and they have never asked me any of those things. First thing out of there mouth is license and registration please, or maybe hi. You must have really bad luck.

Post by Dude on Apr 4, 2007 21:05:08 GMT -5

well it is very possible that we would be profiled differently in a cops eyes. its probably a sure bet.

i must have missed the daily bombings of federal buildings. and the percentage of parents that molest their children is very small. the percentage of cops that use the tactics they are taught to pressure people to give up their rights is very large.

Post by headinlot on Apr 4, 2007 21:23:10 GMT -5

dudewhersmyinforoo said:

they ask you how fast you were going, where your coming from, where your going to, do you have anything illegal int ther car, etc...

Every time I get pulled over by city cops these questions are quickly asked, although I will say I have never had any trouble or asked to be searched with state police (in VA anyways), they just give you your ticket and let you go on your way, I have gotten off with just a warning several times with State police. They are a lot more proffessional acting and respectful compared to city cops. Dont know how bad they are in other states.

Post by xiphoid on Apr 4, 2007 21:51:53 GMT -5

knoxville said:

You must have really bad luck.

dudewhersmyinforoo said:

well it is very possible that we would be profiled differently in a cops eyes. its probably a sure bet.

call me crazy, but if you're admitting that you are a likely candidate to be pulled over due to profiling stereotypes, wouldn't it make sense to try and do something to change that? and i'm not talking about something dramatic like changing who you are as an individual, but wouldn't the benefits of 'appearing' to be someone who wouldn't be profiled outweigh the inconvenience of changing things up for the duration of a car ride?

i mean, i look at it kind of like getting dressed for work (certain jobs): you put on some khaki's or whatever instead of jeans because you want to convey the proper image to those you interact with, thus influencing their perception of you. why not apply the same logic?

Maybe I'll throw myself to the dogs, but my back's not to the wallMaybe I'll lay some bricks for the man, but the days just aren't that longSo if I settle back and chill will I see far enough to feel the angel's dream?I thought it was the Story of the World!